Impact of angiosome- and nonangiosome-targeted peroneal bypass on limb salvage and healing in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Direct (DIR) or indirect (IND) revascularization of pedal angiosomes in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) has an unclear impact on limb salvage and healing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of DIR and IND revascularization in patients with a peroneal bypass and tissue loss. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database in two European university centers from 2004 to 2015. We extracted from this database all patients with CLTI and tissue loss who had received a bypass to the peroneal artery. All patients underwent angiography before bypass. Revascularization was considered DIR if the wound was in a peroneal angiosome. Wounds, ischemia, and infection were categorized according to the Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification. Limb salvage and amputation-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression was used to compare the role of patient characteristics, including diabetes, peroneal runoff, pedal arch angiosome, WIfI grade, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes, in amputation-free-survival. RESULTS: From January 2004 through October 2015, there were 120 peroneal bypasses performed in 120 patients with CLTI and foot tissue loss. Only 55 wounds (46%) could be ascribed to a peroneal angiosome. At 3 years, amputation-free survival in patients with DIR revascularization was 54.9% ± 7.3% compared with 56.5% ± 6.3% in patients with IND revascularization (P = .44), with no significant difference in wound healing. Amputation-free survival at 3 years in patients with two patent peroneal branches was 74.8% ± 6.9% compared with 45.0% ± 6.0% in patients with one patent peroneal branch (P = .003). Amputation-free survival at 3 years in patients with a patent pedal arch (Rutherford 0-1) was 73.0% ± 7.0% vs 45.7% ± 6.0% in patients with incomplete pedal arch (Rutherford 2-3; P = .0002). Amputation-free survival at 3 years in patients with grade 1 or grade 2 WIfI was 87.4% ± 8.3% compared with 48.4% ± 5.3% in patients with grade 3 or grade 4 WIfI (P = .001). Amputation-free survival at 3 years in patients with diabetes was 43.7% ± 6.2% compared with 73.1% ± 6.7% in patients without diabetes (P = .002). Wound healing at 6 months was not significantly improved by its location within or outside a peroneal angiosome. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that diabetes, patency of both peroneal branches, patency of pedal arch, and WIfI stage but not DIR angiosome revascularization were significant predictors of amputation-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in patients with CLTI and tissue loss receiving a peroneal bypass, patency of both peroneal branches and pedal arch was associated with a better healing rate and a better amputation-free survival rate irrespective of wound angiosome location.

Prosthetic bypass for restenosis after endarterectomy or stenting of the carotid artery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of prosthetic carotid bypass (PCB) with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in treatment of restenosis after CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2014, 66 patients (57 men and 9 women; mean age, 71 years) presenting with recurrent carotid artery stenosis ≥70% (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial [NASCET] criteria) were enrolled in a prospective study in three centers. The study was approved by an Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. During the same period, a total of 4321 CEAs were completed in the three centers. In these 66 patients, the primary treatment of the initial carotid artery stenosis was CEA in 57 patients (86%) and CAS in nine patients (14%). The median delay between primary and redo revascularization was 32 months. Carotid restenosis was symptomatic in 38 patients (58%) with transient ischemic attack (n = 20) or stroke (n = 18). In this series, all patients received statins; 28 patients (42%) received dual antiplatelet therapy, and 38 patients (58%) received single antiplatelet therapy. All PCBs were performed under general anesthesia. No shunt was used in this series. Nasal intubation to improve distal control of the internal carotid artery was performed in 33 patients (50%), including those with intrastent restenosis. A PTFE graft of 6 or 7 mm in diameter was used in 6 and 60 patients, respectively. Distal anastomosis was end to end in 22 patients and end to side with a clip distal to the atherosclerotic lesions in 44 patients. Completion angiography was performed in all cases. The patients were discharged under statin and antiplatelet treatment. After discharge, all of the patients underwent clinical and Doppler ultrasound follow-up every 6 months. Median length of follow-up was 5 years. RESULTS: No patient died, sustained a stroke, or presented with a cervical hematoma during the postoperative period. One transient facial nerve palsy and two transient recurrent nerve palsies occurred. Two late strokes in relation to two PCB occlusions occurred at 2 years and 4 years; no other graft stenosis or infection was observed. At 5 years, overall actuarial survival was 81% ± 7%, and the actuarial stroke-free rate was 93% ± 2%. There were no fatal strokes. CONCLUSIONS: PCB with PTFE grafts is a safe and durable alternative to CEA in patients with carotid restenosis after CEA or CAS in situations in which CEA is deemed either hazardous or inadvisable.

How to manage hypertension with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis?

The management of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) in patients with hypertension has been the topic of great controversy. Major contemporary clinical trials such as the Cardiovascular Outcomes for Renal Artery lesions (CORAL) and Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Atherosclerotic lesions (ASTRAL) have failed to show significant benefit of revascularization over medical management in controlling blood pressure and preserving renal function. We present here the implications and limitations of these trials and formulate recommendations for management of ARAS.

Chirurgie aortique totalement laparoscopique ou par laparotomie: comparaison des résultats après appariement par un score de propension.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the postoperative and medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic aortic surgery with those of conventional aortic surgery performed by a surgical team trained in laparoscopic aortic surgery. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted between January 2006 and December 2011 with 228 consecutive patients having undergone aortic bypass surgery for either an abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 139) or an occlusive aortoiliac disease (n = 89). Conventional open aortic surgery was carried out in 145 patients, and total laparoscopic repair in 83 patients. The composite primary endpoint measure grouped together the following adverse events (AE): (1) any details < 30 days or later deaths related to the operation, (2) postoperative hemorrhage necessitating reoperation, (3) myocardial infarction I 30 days. (4) stroke I 30 days, (5) postoperative respiratory failure necessitating reintubation or assisted ventilation J 4 days, (6) aortic prosthesis infection, (7) aortic prosthesis occlusion, (8) any reoperation related to aortic surgery. In order to diminish biases attributable to the absence of randomization, the two surgical groups were matched by a propensity score enabling analysis of 50 pairs of patients having presented with identical preoperative characteristics. Univariate analysis of the AE occurring during the first 30 postoperative days was followed by multivariate analysis through logistic regression. The incidence rate of AE during follow-up was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the roles of the different covariables were analyzed using the Cox model. RESULTS: Univariate analysis of the groups adjusted for propensity score showed that laparoscopic repair was associated with significantly higher risk of AE over the first 30 postoperative days (p = 0.03). Logistic regression analysis showed that laparoscopic aortic technique (Odds Ratio (OR) ; 4.50) and coronary artery disease (OR ; 4.67) were independently related to occurrence of an AE during the postoperative period. Occurrence of AE during follow-up was analyzed using the Cox model. Only two variables, laparoscopic aortic surgery [Hazard Ratio (HR) ; 4,40 ; CI 95 % 1.70-11.38 ; p. = 0.002] and coronary artery occurrence of an AE during follow-up. The small number of patients prevented a separate analysis with regard to aneurysmal and occlusive aortic disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that even with a well-trained surgical team, the laparoscopic approach increases risk for AE observed in the course of aortic surgery. ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT02325700.